Friday, October 26, 2012

His first class
honours in Maths in Trinity
College seems of little help
in sharpening his logical thinking. Lee Hsien Loong again plays the blame game.
According to his logic, a lot of our current housing woes are caused by broken
families. [Link]

His solution is: “…ultimately the family members have to work
things out themselves, and ideally avoid breaking up in the first place.”

But we do not live
in an ideal world. He seems to forget about that.

By his understanding,
to avoid housing problems, all Singaporeans have to by hook or by crook
maintain their family structure. Such twisted logic sheds some light to the rationale
behind the housing policy on singles where they are prohibited from purchasing
new HDB flats because of their “defiance” to the traditional family structure. Therefore,
singles are supposed to marry someone of the opposite gender to gain access to
new HDB flats, well, by hook or by crook. With that policy in place for decades,
the number of singles is still persistently on the rise.

Mr Lee doesn’t
seem to realize that no one breaks up a family for past time leisure. For many, that has to
be the last resort. And when family has to be broken up, whether due to third
party, financial pressure or terminal illness, housing policy should not ostracize
these already unfortunate people. Or put it the other way round, housing policy
should not be the reason for a family to stay together, and neither should it
be the reason for a single to marry the next person who comes along in the
street. Sometimes, it is a healthier option to break up a family than to endure
the mental torture and misery of keeping it which might in turn lead to more
disastrous consequence. Moreover, policy should serve to facilitate the people,
to benefit the people and not employed as a social engineering tool that does
little to achieve the intended objective in the first place.

Whether a
divorcee, a widow/er or a single, they should have the rights to the access of
cheaper new HDB flats and not to be further penalized for their circumstances,
whether it is a choice or not. We are not talking about entitling them with free
housing over here. These people are paying for their abodes but why should they
be discriminated and subject to higher price tag for a roof over their heads?

Breaking up families is mentally, emotionally and financially stressful for all individuals
involved. The housing policy only further rubs chilli into the wounds and
creates further wreckages, especially for families with children involved. And
given such stringent housing policy, there is still a significant number of
people who “choose” to break up their families and “choose” to deal with imminent
homelessness than to live together, it is an evidence to prove that some things
are beyond any hope of remedy. And precisely it is the very last choice to be
taken, housing policy should avoid further exacerbating their plights.

The most amazing
thing is, being the PM of our country, being the leader of our country and
people, instead of re-looking at the unrealistic, uncompassionate and out-dated
housing policy and feeding in with more humanity and compassion, LHL swiftly
blames his citizens for causing him problems. His lack of logic is one thing
(that could be trained), his lack of compassion, empathy and breadth of mind as
the head of our country piques me the most.

Yes, if only everything
in this world is perfect, then his job would be easy. But there again, we won’t
need him in the first place. And to pay him an astronomical salary to keep him
there.

The only possible explanation
for LHL’s twisted logic, being such a clever man as he is, is that he cannot
think of a better means to hide the truth. The truth being, he and his gang will
not solve our housing problems as that would be detrimental to their own deep
pockets.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Failure
is not to fall down; it is to remain there when you have fallen.

Finally this Sept, Ong Ye Kung decided to bow
out of the political arena after his first and only political loss in Aljunied
GRC in the 2011 General Elections. His initial calculations probably didn’t
work as planned as no GRC had ever fallen into the hands of the alternative
parties before in Singapore’s
history. Like many other current Cabinet ministers such as the likes of Teo
Chee Hean, Chan Chung Sing, Heng Swee Keat who were parachuted into the Cabinet
without having to stand on his own feet for elections, he too could have ridden
on the backs of the GRC system to sail straight into Parliament. He could easily havebeen the future minister. And laps of luxury will await him thereafter.

Thanks to the GRC system which exposes
opportunists on both political camps, PAP or the alternative parties.

The PAP ship that was sent to contest
Aljunied GRC sank pathetically. Not
because of the defeated outcome but by the way the candidates lost. The seconds
the ship sank, those on board, including two heavy-weighted ministers, scurried
out of the political arena literally like mice fleeing a sinking ship. And it
only takes a single loss to bare the opportunistic quality, the little passion
and the hardly-there political will against adversity of these candidates who
were touted to be crème of the crop hand-picked by PAP. Only one GRC fell this
far and already, the entire PAP team of incumbent and rookies exited out of
politics, unwilling to make an extra effort to regain the GRC which they have
lost.

How many of such undesirable weak-willed,
passionless candidates sneaked into our Parliament and Cabinet through the GRC
system? Among the 80 odd candidates, only Sitoh Yih Pin persisted for three
elections before he finally won over Potong Pasir residents. On the contrary, I
have seen more defeated opposition members coming back in subsequent elections.
Chiam See Tong is one good example. Sylvia Lim won in her second contest.

At their first taste of loss, George Yeo,
Lim Hwee Hua and Zainal Abidin “retired”, more aptly fled, from politics immediately
after the election. George Yeo and Lim, both ministers, who spent 23 years and
13 years respectively in politics, suffered the only loss in their political career
in Aljunied in 2011. Coincidentally, both had never stood in any elections in a
single ward fighting their own political battle for survival. As seen in this
classic Aljunied example, GRC has always been the short cut to politics for PAP
rookies until 2011.

Their hasty departure speaks volume of the
need of guaranteed political power and monetary rewards for them to “commit” to
the politics of Singapore.
This explains the forlorn state of the PAP Aljunied team and best expressed by
George Yeo:

“I
thought if there wasn’t something that I could change, because it wasn’t
something about me, maybe it was time to open a new chapter of my life.”--
George Yeo, Oct 2012.

And ironically, these are the talented
people who Lee Hsien Loong is trying to thrust upon the people and they fall
within LHL’s definition of “good candidates”. If justice, inevitably will always have to be fought for, or moral values need to be upheld, we will have to wait till the sun rises from the west before George Yeo and the likes will lift a finger to change.

“And
you must always be part of the larger flow. If you want to fight the flow, you
will be very tired. It is always important to know where the big flows are and
to move to the big flows, then you can do a lot of things.” George
Yeo, Oct 2012.

And such materialistic “leaders” simply contrasts
and accentuates the strength and commitment demonstrated by the alternative
parties. J. B. Jeyaretnam’s name came into my mind. Twice thrown out of Parliament
and was still fighting his political battle till his last breath; Chee Soon
Juan has been in and out of prison for his political ideals and is still
fighting till this day; Chiam See Tong won his first victory after two defeats and
is still continuing his political path after his last defeat in 2011 despite
his age and health. And these “losers” as labelled by the PAP incumbents, swam
against the tidal currents for what they believed in, against all adversities
to uphold their beliefs so as to change the larger flow of voters. Each time, they failed and persevered.

JBJ stood tall in his entire political life
even though he passed on without a single seat in Parliament; even though he
was crushed repeatedly by libel suits that dented his political career, JBJ always
come back from where he has fallen. Time after time. Till the age of 82 when he
drew his last breath. And during an era where the fear of associating with the
opposition was still very real. JBJ swam against the huge currents and that
spirit alone dwarfed all the candidates of the Aljunied team piled up together.
Yes, to fight against the flow is tiring, as George Yeo has mentioned, and thus
not many mundane figures could do that. JBJ has his own career before his
political attempt, he has his own family too, not much difference from George
Yeo or Lim Hwee Hua. But JBJ rises many levels above the PAP premium cadets
with the beliefs that he has held and choose to uphold. Beliefs, larger than
any amount of monetary rewards and yet, is the most powerful motivational drive
that gives strength to a crestfallen being. Where self sacrifices are nothing
to be mentioned. Because those beliefs were not meant to be self-beneficial to start with but to benefit the masses out there.

Failures are definitely the names for those
who could not stand the test of time.

Sunday, October 07, 2012

If xenophobia is the word for the hatred
of foreigners, what is the equivalent word for the hatred of original citizens?

Yes, I must be a snob.

I simply cannot suppress my increasing
disgust at the bulk of foreign nationals, especially those coming from an
ancient civilization from the north of Asia who exhibit poor personal hygiene
such as trimming nails, spitting, littering, urinating in the public and even
lower civic-mindedness than our peoples in terms of giving up seats on public
transport, giving priority to alighting passengers on trains, standing on the
left on escalators..... well, every ugly social behaviour exhibited by our own peoples
that were denounced as ungracious by our own politicians and people in the past
decades are now exhibited by foreign nationals. And in greater scale. The
overwhelming presence of foreign nationals presented new forms of undesirable social
behaviour and thus “contributed” more
vibrancy to our island-nation.

I realize the likes of Baey Kim Yam and Sim Ann would chastise me for not
reflecting on my own disgust or for making hate speech or being xenophobia on
our foreign nationals even though my own observations conclude a higher
proportion of poor behaviour and ungraciousness manifested by our darling
foreign nationals than locals. And because it is a personal observation, I
understand its validity and factual value are deemed inferior to official
statistics/surveys despite the latter are often being skewed conveniently to prove
a point and therefore diminishing the value of truth much more than individuals’
observations.

I heeded Mr Baey’s advice and reflected
dutifully to avoid being accused of being divisive and precisely I did reflect
that I eventually refuse to hide my appalling disgust at some foreign nationals.
Reflection is futile, I do realize that. For what underscores Mr Baey’s advice
of self-reflection is not about self reflection itself but a plot to restrain
citizens from painting the foreign nationals in bad colours even if those were
their genuine colours. These days, the word “foreigner” has become a forbidden
word for citizens like me. Negative comments are immediately framed as a
xenophobic gesture. Ugly Singaporeans is not an unspoken secret and I hate our
ugly behaviour as well. Contrary to Mr Baey’s advice, Singaporeans have
explicitly reprimanded ourselves on our poor hygiene (think of our toilets and
flushing of toilets) and severe lack of civi-mindedness. Politicians even went
further to introduce a series of hard and soft approaches in the forms of fines,
corrective work and courtesy campaigns over the last two decades in cultivating
a more gracious society. It was then. We were lectured in the 80s and 90s by
our politicians about our ungraciousness, therefore the urge of a gracious
society helmed by then PM Goh Chok Tong. Politicians were determined to
"re-educate" our people. It was a positive move imo.

And because of the constant reminders and penalties
meted out for failing to adhere to gracious behaviour over the decades, we
begin to see glimpses of GCT’s gracious society. Even bad habits such as
spitting, a distinctive trait among our ethnic chinese men has become a
disappearing "trait" until it was re-ignited in recent years by the
whole load of a specific group of foreign nationals with die-hard spitting
habit across gender and age were unloaded onto our island.

By 2012, we have witnessed a play back of
the ungraciousness and poor personal hygiene in the public that we used to “endure”
and shockingly, new forms of ungraciousness appear fast and furious too. Contributed
by foreign nationals. Supermarket trolleys discarded at HDB void decks, supermarket
trolleys pushed onto shuttle buses, test-eating fruit in supermarkets .….are
adding on to the traditional list of the unbecoming Singaporeans, and when the
term “foreigner” is banned, all these undesirable traits are then conveniently
or cunningly classified under Singaporeans' behaviour. Littering, spitting,
jumping queue are on the growth again.

The distinction between citizens and foreign
nationals (new citizens, PRs or foreign workers/talents) is needed, not for the
purpose of promoting xenophobia, but to highlight (1) the growing trend of
undesirable social behaviour (a frequent tourist to our island has written to
our papers on finding more litter than 5 years ago) as the consequence of over-expansion
of population; and (2) the justification of Singaporeans shouldering the accusation
of a dirtier nation, appalling personal hygiene, more ungracious people when in
actual fact, the no. of Singaporeans is dwindling against an increasing proportion
of foreign nationals where 18 000 – 20 000 citizenships
were given out in recent years.

Yes, Sim Ann, this is my hate-speech--I
detest+hate+abhor poor hygiene manners and inconsiderate behaviour manifested
in the public sphere regardless of the nationality of the offender. Nevertheless,
it irks me more to find foreign nationals for exhibiting such manners because:

(1) Within my sphere of living space, I
come across proportionately more ungracious foreign nationals than locals.

(2) The gradual improvement (nevertheless, there’s
still more room for improvement) in our graciousness is promptly undermined by some
foreign nationals.

(3) The proportion of foreign nationals* are
growing whilst original Singaporeans (excluding the new citizens please) are proportionately
shrinking.

* My definition of foreign nationals differ
from that of the politicians. Foreign nationals should comprise new citizens
who were originally immigrants + PRs + foreign workers and talents.

2005 -- 2010, Singapore
added between 17,334 and 20,513 new citizens to the population each year. In
2011, the number dropped to 15,777. (The Straits Times - 8 July 2012)

Taking the
conservative no. of 17 334 for the intake between 2005 – 2010 alone would
give rise to more than 100 000 new citizens.

I exclude these new citizens from the original
citizens’ co-hort as they are generally immigrants from foreign
countries with their own social behaviour and have been exempted those years of
“rigorous education” of social behaviour as the original citizens. With the unabated
intake of new citizens, PRs and foreign people, we, the “original” citizens
(the definition itself is vague, I know) are already fast becoming the minority
in our own country before the official statistics would admit.

And because of the fast-changing demography
between local citizens and foreign nationals, poor social bahviour among some foreign
nationals is not a matter of a few black sheep, given their large numbers. Compounded
by the poor social behaviour from our very own citizens, our civilization is
going backward in greater scale and depths. Mr Baey and Ms Sim might not notice
this changing trend as they live miles and centuries away from mundane places,
such as our HDB flats and public transport where there is large presence of
foreign nationals. Both would find life in Singapore the same as it was a
decade ago.

Foreign labour has helped our country to
fast forward into the advanced nations thru GDP figures and image-enhancing buildings/hardware
and simultaneously, they are also lending us a hand to fast track into the
uncivilized worlds.

How many foreign nationals (NC, PRs, FW/FT) can original Singaporeans embrace
given the large presence of foreign nationals? It took us decades to re-educate
our then small population of 3.5 million in the mid-90s and we are now looking
at 5 million and are still going on to 6 millionor so(Lee Hsien Loong said so). And
please refrain from asking Singaporeans to embrace the foreign nationals. With the dwindling number of Singaporeans, we
just do not have enough hands to do so.

Mr Baey and Ms Sim have been very concerned
about hate speech and xenophobic comments demonstrated against foreign
nationals. Their usage of hate speech or xenophobia are just mere distraction
to the issue of holding double standards for original citizens and foreign
nationals. If our ungracious behaviour back then irked the predecessors of Baey
Kim Yam and Sim Ann, then why the silence now on the ungracious behaviour of
the foreign nationals?

If xenophobia is the word for the hatred
of foreigners, what is the equivalent word for the hatred of original citizens?

“A lot of Singaporeans feel they must
have the latest and best. And that adds to the pressure of why you feel qian bu
gou yong – money no enough.” – PM Lee
Hsien Loong

According to him, it is not that the prices of goods have gone up but that
Singaporeans' expectations have. With that, he cunningly swept the concerns of
inflationary pressures under his extraordinary thick carpet.

“Expectations, buying things which you
didn't use to buy, I think are a big part of why people feel housing costs (and
the) cost of living have gone up.” he said. So inflationary pressure is purely an
individual’s sentiment.

No qualms about his intelligence when he exploits
humans' insatiable greed for the intention to confuse the issues between
desires and inflation where each are actually independent of each other. Insatiable
greed is the intrinsic traits of us humans. It is true that in this day and
age, we have lots of electronic gadgets which my parents' generation never had;
not wrong to say either that I would want to possess infinite number of
materials; and neither can LHL hide the fact that that the cost of basic goods
in my parents' generation are comparatively more affordable in proportion to
their salaries (my father was the only breadwinner) than it is for our current generation.
Housing, education, healthcare and transport are the basic
goods to start quality life. And these are the four areas which will impact the
current generation more than previous generations.

Let us take a look at the pricing of HDB 4-room
flats as a benchmark. Housing is a basic need for young couples to start families
and 4 room flat should be reasonably spacious for young families.

On housing,

Between 1970s to 2010s, the jump in price
of a 4 room flat is 18 times. I
couldn’t find concrete figures for a fresh graduate in the 1970s but I do have
the average graduate pay in 2012, that is, $2
678. Even without the exact figures for the 1970s, anyone could guess that current
fresh graduate couldn’t be earning 18 times more than a graduate in the 70s
could earn. And for non-graduates whose starting pay is lower than graduates’, HDB
flats inflation is even greater for them. This is not a result of individuals’
higher expectations. It is a fact.

Let's put it this way. Even if I give up
purchasing ten iPads in the next twenty years till my retirement time, would
that amount of savings suffice for my parents’ and my own medical costs by then
after taken into account of future inflation rate of healthcare at the current
rate? Is LHL implying that if young people were to give up their iPads, hairdos,
their caviar, they would in turn “feel”
BTO flats affordable?

A 4-room standard flat at Sengkang is
priced at $ 225 000 (without grant) at Sep 2011. 8 months later, at May 2012, a
4-room standard flat at Sengkang started at $275 000, an increase of $50
000 compared to Sep 2011.

You simply cannot save an amount of $50 000 in 8 months with a fresh
graduate’s average pay, even if it means saving up every cent of that disposable
income. Giving up ipads, hairdos, fine dining are futile in curbing the
increasing price of HDB flats.

Desires do not result in inflation. And
neither could void of desires curb inflation.

Given the inflation rate, putting aside the entire disposable income is hardly able to cushion the pricing of flats. What about the other two basic goods
for families: medical and education. For some families, a single
generation is taking care of the medical costs for two generations: a couple
taking care of their elderly parents who have little CPF savings and their own
future healthcare cost.

On our expectations on our public transport,
we were in fact encouraged to believe that we have the best system in the
world. It is not unreasonable then to expect the best. However, the fares rise
inevitably, accompanied by a drastic fall in quality level. Think of comfort
and reliability. On private vehicles, increasing number of vehicles give rise
to more traffic congestions and ERP does little or nothing at all to resolve
that matter.

On the other spectrum, let us take a look at the expectations of our ministers,
people who are supposedly to be making huge sacrifices stepping into our
political arena. The inflation of our ministerial salaries surpass the rate of
inflation of our HDB flats:

Pay of ministers in 1970, $2 500 - $4 500
per month, approx. $30 000 – $55 000 each year. By 2012, ministers are paid $ 916 000
each month, totaling $ 1.1million in a year. That is 20 times the amount in
1970.

The inflation of our HDB flats dwarfed that of our ministerial salaries inflation.

Apply LHL’s logic of high expectation, ministers’ size of expectation is comparable
to that of the planet Jupiter since the size of their salaries have been ballooned 20
times in thirty years. Therefore, it is little surprise to hear Grace
Foo crying out in agony for her pay cut.

The message which LHL is driving at is that expectations are reserved only for
the ministers and elites, citizens are not entitled to have any of it. Simply
put, give up hopes on his political party in resolving soaring prices on our
basic goods.

Monday, October 01, 2012

I was browsing through the book “The Next
Lap”, published in 1991 by The Government of Singapore, which was when Goh Chok
Tong was at helm, and noted several discrepancies in what happened to Singapore between
what was planned in the 1990s and the reality on the grounds 20 years after its
publication.

（1）Projected population of 4 million people in 1991 for the next 20 –
30 years

In 1991, our population was projected for 4
million people, 50% more than the then population of 3.1 million (Source:
Singapore Department of Statistics). In “The Next Lap”, it was stated that “...we
can comfortably house 4 million people, 50 per cent more than now, and still
improve our quality of life.” (pg 24 in The Next Lap).

Twenty years later, our population stands
at 5.3 million, a 1.3 million people in excess. The 4 million population target is a huge contradiction to Lee Hsien Loong’s current vision of “6 million
or so” for the future and “6 million or so” is a 100 % increase of our population
in 1991.

Interestingly, it was perceived in 1991 that
4 million people allowed possible improvement of quality of life. This vision
did not materialize as our current 5.3 million population has already slashed our
quality in terms of infrastructure. It is terrifying to think of the damage
with a further 2 million people as Lee Hsien Loong’s “6 million or so” might
translate into 6.9 million people.

Other than the reduced quality of living, it
also evidenced the short-sightedness of our government on our population
growth. 20 years down the road, the 1991 vision of 4 million was retracted and in
place is a projection of “6 million or so” people, exposing the little idea that
our government, led by the same political party for 50 years, has. They have no
concrete idea on the size of the population needed to beef up their insatiable GDP figures and profit
margins.

(2)
MRT system planned for 4 million population

The population mishap proves that all
existing infrastructure was meant to cater for a population of 4 million. Today,
our population stands at 5.3 and it is still growing towards 6 million or so.

Our MRT system in 1991 was thus planned for
4 million. The 5 million population in 2011 has already strained our MRT system
leading to the massive break down in 2011. Current public transport is still struggling.
It is still to be seen how it would cope with a 6 million population, and not
taking into account the additional one million tourists (Singapore received 13 million tourists in 2011) and growing medical
tourists on our island each month. We have to think of the no. of cars on the
road and the amount of pollution caused as they constitute part of quality life.

Although reactionary measures such as another
hospital, more BTO flats and public transport fleet are on the way, it only
serves to bare the ill-thought vision back in 1991. It gives me little
confidence of the vision which Lee Hsien Loong is crafting now.

“The Next Lap” was a written outline of a “programme
to make Singapore
more prosperous, gracious and interesting over the next 20 to 30 years” (quoted
from the The Next Lap, Foreword--Beyond 1999, Pg 13). In a nutshell, “The Next
Lap” was a vision of Goh Chok Tong’s Singapore in 20 – 30 years’ time. It
is interesting to note the discrepancies between his vision then and what
actually took place 20 years later. It is even more significant at a juncture
when our country is in the stage of crafting a new vision, led by PM Lee Hsien
Loong through the tool of National Conversation.

Would the vision of “6 million or so”
population be switched to a target of 8 million or so five years down the road?